Latest GOP scheme would only punish kids

Updated 3:15 pm, Thursday, November 15, 2012

Gov. Rick Perry and his cohorts in the Texas Legislature have a point - a few points, actually. One: Drug abuse is bad. Two: The state shouldn't subsidize drug abuse. Three: In these hard economic times, lawmakers should be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

No argument here. And if Perry and friends could come up with valid legislation that backed up those points, I'd be writing a different column.

Sadly, the latest scheme top Republicans in Austin have cooked up - or, more accurately, copied from some far-right think tank that cooked it up- may only exacerbate drug abuse among needy people. It would crack down on a "problem" that's never been proved to exist. And, during these hard economic times, the expensive reforms would waste even more precious taxpayer dollars rather than save them.

And, oh yeah, it could also threaten the livelihoods of innocent children.

Most Popular

At issue is a bill by state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, that would require needy Texans applying for state-federal welfare benefits to pass a drug test. Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst have piled on, calling for those applying for unemployment insurance to be drug-tested as well.

A sensible person might assume that since all these important officials are making this issue a priority that there's a real, pressing, expensive problem here that needs to be addressed.

But, for starters, the direct cash assistance program that Nelson is targeting only represents a sliver of welfare dollars and benefits only the poorest of the poor: a family of three, for example, that makes no more than $2,290.90 per year. There's no evidence that this group, or the unemployed, are likely to use state funds to support drug habits. When I asked Nelson's office for evidence, her staffer provided none. When I asked the state for data showing how welfare recipients spend the funds in question, I was told the state doesn't have it.

And then there's the other blaring issue no one seems to want to address. Only about 17,700 beneficiaries of the welfare program in question were adults in fiscal year 2011. The rest, 96,743, were children, according to the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income Texans.

What happens to the child whose parent is denied benefits for testing positive for, say, marijuana? Adults with felony drug convictions are already disqualified for welfare and food stamps, but parents are allowed to apply for direct cash benefits solely on behalf of a child. And for good reason: Children shouldn't be punished because of their parents' behavior.

Sure, it is a tragedy that a small number of parents may be exposing their children to drugs. But denying a desperate family help and plunging them further into poverty isn't going to help. The stress involved could even make it worse. We'd be treating these families more harshly than many of our courts, which have had good results encouraging treatment. And poor families aren't the only ones who would pay. You, good taxpayer, would, too. Rather than save money, a drug screening program could cost millions. A bill last session that ordered screenings just for applicants and recipients of unemployment compensation benefits would have cost about $47 million to implement over two years. Maybe that's why it never got out of committee.

Florida's trailblazing version of the scheme didn't set much of an example. Early figures show that about 2.5 percent of up to 2,000 applicants for welfare benefits have tested positive for drugs since the law went into effect in July, the Associated Press reported. And Florida didn't save money. Because it paid back applicants who tested negative for drugs, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, said the American Civil Liberties Union.

The question remains: Why would Nelson, Perry and Dewhurst support a bill that won't reduce drug abuse and would likely cost taxpayers even more than it's trying to save? It could have something to do with a far-right campaign to undermine support for unemployment insurance benefits by associating them with welfare. Or it could be this simple: For Republicans, it's good politics to beat up on Mitt Romney's "47 percent." Even when that 47 percent are welfare recipients who are no more than 0.4 percent of Texas' 25.7 million population. And even when most of that 0.4 percent are kids.